Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United Kingdom

Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter? 214

Posted by timothy
from the by-the-way-monarchy-has-some-downsides dept.
DavidGilbert99 writes "This time last year the Queen officially introduced the Communications Data Bill (known as the Snooper's Charter to those opposing it). Last month it was effectively killed when the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said it went too far and he wouldn't support it. Today the Queen was back and while there was no official mention of the Communications Data Bill, there was mention of 'crime in cyberspace' and a very strong hint that more legislation to monitor people's online activity is on the way."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?

Comments Filter:
  • The Queen (Score:5, Informative)

    by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @05:25AM (#43673193)

    I don't think the queen had much to do with it so I'm not sure why she's getting a mention. This would fall under "official duties that have to be carried out or I lose my allowance". The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.

    • Re:The Queen (Score:4, Informative)

      by ACDChook (665413) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @05:38AM (#43673237)
      I don't think the queen would mind so much if she lost her "allowance"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw [youtube.com]
    • The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.

      Which politicians told Prince Harry to stage a randy-rompy game of strip billiards in Las Vegas? Those are the type of politicians that I would like to elect!

      "The Economist" regularly frowns on the monarchy concept, because it undermines the principle that positions of state should be based on merit. Although, they are not really rabid about it.

      An interesting thought on royalty can be found in Beaumarchais' play "The Marriage of Figaro". Figaro points at the Count and says:

      "Because you are a great n

      • Question:
        Can you name a single country whose last three leaders have actually been selected based on merit?

        Hollande, Bush, etc. were selected by a process; but in 20-20 hindsight it's pretty clear there wasn't much merit involved. Or, to be more precise, the things you have to be good at to earn a Presidency (winning elections) have virtually nothing to do with the things you do as President.

        • by Teun (17872)
          Have a look at the German system where the President is largely a-political, a bit like a NW-European monarch. Even that system has had its problems but it is largely functional.
        • Question: Can you name a single country whose last three leaders have actually been selected based on merit?

          Germany: Merkel, Schröder, Kohl, Schmidt, Brandt. That's five, if you're counting. And I am American, so I didn't elect 'em.

          Or, to be more precise, the things you have to be good at to earn a Presidency (winning elections) have virtually nothing to do with the things you do as President.

          I agree with you on that. The wisest thing a political leader can do, is to pick the smartest folks for the cabinet posts . . . and then get out of their way and let them run things. The merit involved here, is being able to delegate, organize and win the trust of the voters. A lot of the decisions that a leader needs to make on economic issues are bad-tasting medicine, that

        • by tnk1 (899206)

          Yes, it seems to me that the ability to become president is simply the ability to convince the power brokers that you will do the job to their satisfaction. There are a lot of popular fools out there.

          That is not to say that the power brokers necessarily feel that it is in their interests to have a moron elected. There are wise plutocrats, and foolish ones. The wise ones understand that in the long run, you can't have a moron running the government. As long as they can have their hooks into the governmen

    • Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...

      We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...

      • by MrMickS (568778)

        Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...

        We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...

        Just how did they come by this land? Was it the land that belong to the monarch that they inherited when George I was offered the crown and the House of Hanover took over from the Stuarts as monarch? In that case it's not really their land, but rather the land of the monarch, whoever that may be. Its wrong to think of it as the Windsor's family land in that sense, rather the income from that land is used to fund them and their endeavours. If the monarchy were to be removed I would see those lands as largely

        • How'd every family farm in the entire world come by it's land: inheritance.

          It's unusual that the UK has kept political power formally tied to heredity, and that they haven't reformed land laws to make it clear the Queen owns nothing of the Crown Estate, but in principle the only difference between HM inheriting most of the UK and a Texas rancher inheriting a bunch of grazing rights from his father is scale.

          • by MrMickS (568778)

            I think if you look into it a bit further you'll find that the ownership is related to the monarch, if the queen is removed as the monarch then those rights will go with it. This is certainly true for the Duchy of Cornwall which is related to the holder of the position of the Prince of Wales rather than for the Windsor family to divvy up as they see fit.

      • Here's the thing:
        In countries with written Constitutions something that only requires 50% of Parliament plus one guy is not a "great Constitutional Change."

        Replacing the Queen would really shock the British people, but in legal terms Parliament has had that power for so many centuries you can argue about how many centuries it has had that power. The British people would be extremely shocked if Parliament actually acted on it's power to fire the Queen, and in that sense it would be a great change; but since

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @05:29AM (#43673199)

    The Queens speech is not written by the Queen.

    It's a summary of the Governments plans for the next legislative period, written by the government.

    She just reads it out.

    • A lot of folk within the UK could do with reminding of this too. Some of the things that are in her speeches are so obviously government spin that they may as well have the Chief Whip out in front of the camera moving her jaw with his hand and speaking the words out of the corner of his mouth.
    • That she keeps a straight face while doing so doesn't bode well for the bloodline.
    • Yeah, Let's Put Upper Cases Every Where.. :-)
    • It's basically their equivalent of the State of the Union, except instead of having their elected Head of Government deliver it they have the unelected Head of State do the job.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @05:31AM (#43673207)

    The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" [bbc.co.uk] wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead [bbc.co.uk]. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.

    • There were a few other positive signals in this year's Queen's Speech for those of us involved with technology as well.

      For example, the government has apparently noticed the number of DRM schemes crippling new games when they go wrong and the plague of low quality software that people are selling, particularly on-line, even though it's so bug-ridden/unstable as to be useless, and it sounds like the consumer rights legislation is about to get an overhaul to make it clear that vendors are on the hook for thes

    • by Xest (935314)

      Unfortunately reports are that "other ways" includes methods to tie and individual to an IP address.

      Personally I think that's even worse, it basically kills free speech online by forcing self-censorship upon people through threat of lawsuits and so forth even when they're in the right. The worrying thing is that Clegg seemed to support this to some extent in that he suggested previously to at least ensure each mobile phone is always assigned a unique IP address rather than have them assigned dynamically.

      Luc

      • by MrMickS (568778)

        Luckily I can't see how it's even technically possible though beyond the mobile world, so I think such ideas will die a rather quick death when they recognise you can't really attach an IP address to a person. Even in the mobile world it's not like you can prove someone else used or didn't use the phone and that it wasn't hacked and some remote entity was proxying via it.

        If the mobile carriers used IPv6 couldn't they give each device a unique, fixed, IP address within their network? The IP address could be tied to SIM card and IMEI of the device which would allow identification of a mobile device. This could be used to identify an owner in a legal sense. Whilst its not perfect its reasonable to assume that the law would work in a similar way to identifying car drivers from the car registration. The owner would be required to provide information as to who was using the devic

  • I think.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @05:35AM (#43673223)

    ..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      There are many constituitonial monarchies, but in most of them the monarchs are allowed to form their own opinion.

  • If Prince Charles has one more medal or adornment pinned onto the front of his suit he's gonna' fall onto his face. What exactly has he done to merit such a display? At least Prince Harry has earned his own service medals by truly serving his country with honor.

    I understand that polo's a dangerous game and all, perhaps that is how Charles got his decorations?

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      They're commemorative medals, [bbc.co.uk] basically. They serve a similar function to the various adornments that the Queen wears. BTW that's the first Google result for "prince charles medals".

    • by cdrudge (68377)

      He's got nothing on Prince Phillip [dailymail.co.uk].

      But to answer your question, he hasn't done anything for most of them other than being present at some event or being where he's at in the royal family. Explanation [bbc.co.uk] of many of the medals.

      • Your links are interesting and informative, thanks. One of the 'comments' from your second link is from a U.K. serviceman who says he met and asked Charles if he could have one of his medals. Charles replied that he could have one of "the chocolate ones". We in the U.S. have our own version of kings and queens modeled after the U.K., fortunatley they get changed out every 4-8 years.

        It seems Prince Charles does have a sense of humor about all the 'pomp and show'. And if that's how he serves his country, by

    • Charles Windsor was a serving officer in the Navy for 5 years (flew helicopters and jets) just like both his sons

      The vast majority of his medals are honorary, just like the awards that most heads of state and their deputies receive ...

    • You'd be surprised how easy it is to get medals in the military.

      State-side you get the National Defense Service Medal for showing up to Basic. Depending on the service, and which form of basic training you go to, you may get another Medal before you even join a unit.

      Prince Charles' medals don't seem to come from that source, but what did you expect? 16 countries have made him deputy-commander-in-chief of their armies. He frequently goes on State Visits, and in countries that are not America part of a state

  • Which "the queen" are we talking about?
    This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.

    • This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.

      • Lindsay Lohan: Only royalty can commit so many crimes, and not go to prison.
      • Oprah: She kindly bought a million billion Microsoft Surfaces for her subjects.
      • Kim Kardashian: Holy Roman Empire sized butt-cheeks.
      • Rhianna: Takes royal beatings from Chris Brown.
      • Mama "Honey Boo Boo" June: Bone-head behavior fitting for a Royal.
    • Dozen?

      There are only two currently reining Queens ....

              Elizabeth II of the UK (and 12 other states)
              Margrethe II of Denmark

      So most of the dozen or so Queens are the same person ....

    • I wasn't confused.

      Generally in a Republic when one refers to "the Queen," one is referring to the Queen of a) the mother country or b) a neighboring country, or c) the former ruling family. Elizabeth II is Queen of the mother country (Britain), several of our neighbors (Canada, Jamaica and other Caribbean states), and is the closest thing we have to a claimant to the US Throne. The summary clearly referenced a British Bill, and the British Deputy Prime Minister, so it's clearly referencing Elizabeth II in h

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @07:19AM (#43673641)

    The Queen has all the power in England and has taken away all their guns so they have no freedom. She is a tyrant in Australia, UK, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and England and those folks cower before her and they don't know what freedom is. If we let Obama take our guns and our pipe bombs we will be defenceless and the Queen on England will come here and we will have SOCIALIST OBAMACRE like in England. You go to a doctor but you can not pay so he sends you to a hospital and you can not pay them either because the Queen's law says so, so the death panel KILLS YOU!
     

    In America we have the first amendment to make us free and we have the second amendment to stop socialists who use the first amendment. Without guns the Queen of England would come here and take away all our elected Washington lobbyists and we would not even have our fair and balanced TV news to get the real truth. Wake up American sheeple !!!!!

  • No

    * The Queen's speech is nothing to do with the Queen

    * the Bill known as "Snoopers charter" The communications data bill was not in the Queen's Speech

    So No ...

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.

Working...